Logical Reasoning

PT135 · S4 · Q16 Critic to economist: In yet another

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Critic to economist: In yet another of your bumbling forecasts, last year you predicted that this country's economy would soon go into recession if current economic policies were not changed.

Critic

You messed up again. You said that if the government didn't change its policies, we'd go into recession. But we didn't go into recession. The economy is even stronger this year.

Economist

Right, we're not in a recession because the government did change. So I was actually right.

Evaluation

The critic presented a conditional claim the economist had made (if no changes, then recession) and argued that it wasn't true, because the outcome (the recession) didn't happen.

And the economist is saying,

A conditional claim is only being broken if a situation conforms to the trigger but not to the outcome.

Goal

It seems like we want an answer that sounds like, .

16.

The economist responds to the critic by

Correct
indicating that the state of
Why this is right
The state of affairs on which a prediction was conditioned did not obtain - ugh. Thanks, LSAT. We love you, too. Was there a prediction? Yes, the economist predicted that if the govt. didn't act fast, there'd be a recession. Was the prediction conditioned on something? Hmm. What does that mean. Like conditional logic? Sure, like conditional logic. "If this condition applies, this outcome is guaranteed." The prediction of a recession was conditioned on the trigger "if the government doesn't make changes". The economist was saying that "in a world in which the govt. does not make changes, there would be a recession." And, as the economist is telling us, that is not the actual world. In the actual world, the government did make changes. So this hypothetical universe didn't come to pass. This condition did not obtain.
Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
68% picked this
distinguishing between a prediction that
Only One Prediction
The only prediction being made is "there will be a recession". The economist was never predicting whether the government would or wouldn't make changes. She only said, conditionally, "if the govt didn't make changes, I predict a recession". To the extent that recession was the only event predicted, we can say that we know the prediction turned out to be incorrect. We're not waiting on it to see whether the recession will still come. The economic is saying "my prediction was only if the government didn't make changes. I didn't make any prediction about whether we would or wouldn't have a recession in a world in which the government did make changes." Had our economist said, "I wasn't wrong. The recession is still gonna happen. Just give it a little more time", then this answer would be applicable.
4% picked this
attempting to show that the
Not Accusing Self-Contradiction
"Mutually inconsistent" means contradictory. The economist is definitely not accusing the critic of having said one thing and said something with the opposite logical meaning.
6% picked this
offering a particular counterexample to
Not a Counterexample
The economist offers a counterfactual to the "if condition" of his prediction. He says a certain fact isn't the case: "it isn't the case that the government failed to make changes". A counterexample to a general claim sounds like "Some people say that if you work hard enough, your dreams will come true, but nobody worked harder than Lenny and he never came close to realizing any of his dreams."
6% picked this
offering evidence against one of
Doesn't Contradict Evidence
The critic's two pieces of evidence are - economist predicted "if no change, then recession" - there isn't a recession From these two facts, he concludes that the economist was wrong. The economist doesn't challenge the truth of either of these premises. She just says, "since the hypothetical part of my prediction didn't come true, there's no way for my prediction to be wrong."
16% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free